Who was Robert Nozick?
Robert Nozick came from Brooklyn, where he was born in 1938. After Columbia and Princeton he took a lasting post at Harvard in 1969. In 1974 he published Anarchy, State, and Utopia, which won the National Book Award and became the best-known scholarly case for libertarianism. Part of its purpose was to answer his Harvard colleague John Rawls. After that he moved to other topics in philosophy, with Philosophical Explanations in 1981, The Examined Life in 1989, The Nature of Rationality in 1993 and Invariances in 2001. Stomach cancer killed him in 2002.
Political views
- His claim was that only a minimal state can be justified, with the sole task of guarding rights to life, liberty, property and contract.Source: plato.stanford.edu
- In his view the state has no right to redistribute income, to make people moral or to shield them from harming themselves.Source: plato.stanford.edu
- He compared taxing earnings to forced labor.Source: plato.stanford.edu
- His entitlement theory says holdings are just when they were acquired and passed on justly, whatever the overall pattern of distribution looks like.Source: plato.stanford.edu
- He said a minimal state could emerge from protective associations through an invisible hand process, and nobody's rights need be violated on the way.Source: plato.stanford.edu
- He saw the minimal state as the frame for a utopia, where people could set up many different voluntary communities.Source: iep.utm.edu
- He held that the minimal state does not tax to fund its services, although a dominant protective agency may bar its clients from using rival agencies.Source: plato.stanford.edu
Legacy
The book forced mainstream philosophers to treat libertarian ideas seriously, and classes on justice still set it against Rawls. Admirers like its reasoning on rights and on how far a state may go. Critics doubt that his account of just acquisition can defend the property people actually own. Anarchists doubt that a minimal state would be stable or legitimate. Some readers took his later books as a retreat from libertarianism, but in 2001 he said he still stood within its broad framework.
In their own words
“Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights).”
